Ethical Universe

Archive for February, 2011

Topigraphical view of human psyche

Of all the changes and additions I’ve made to this website over the last year, the one that has generated the most interest is by far the ethical quiz.  I make this observation based on the comments left by readers; the vast majority of them have been on this posting. Shortly after adding this as a separate web page, I did two things that may well have confused some folks: first I expanded the character evaluation to include a section on determining the direction of extremism indicated in addition to calculating the magnitude of the extremism. The second thing I decided to do simultaneously (and herein lies the rub, I think) was to make the new section of the quiz a separate post in addition to updating the separate page for the quiz. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. I later deleted the separate posting because it seemed redundant; but, there still appeared to be some confusion for some people. So, in an attempt to further explain the quiz concept and also respond to some reader’s call for more info on this subject, I decided to talk a little more about the quiz.

There were a couple of reader comments that indicated the writer was motivated to fake an illness as an excuse to skip a day of school and/or work in order to work on the quiz. I appreciate the enthusiasm, but, I’m not at all sure this is a good idea. First of all, let me reiterate that the quiz was never intended to be a detailed psychological evaluation. It therefore should not be taken all that seriously. I even suggested that it be thought of as a parlor game to convey this message to everyone. Secondly, I never dreamed that the quiz would be seen as complicated enough to warrant spending all day on it. To my way of thinking, the most difficult part of the quiz is the self-evaluation that must precede running the numbers, so to speak. Unless someone is suffering from a great deal of personal angst or has some serious unresolved conflicts in their life, this self-evaluation should not take all that long. I would also say that I see nothing wrong with experimenting a bit with possible character scenarios for you. This basically amounts to playing a few “What if” sessions before deciding on the one that probably fits your true character structure best. Please understand that I am not talking about stacking the deck to insure a favorable outcome – there is nothing whatsoever to be gained by falsifying the input numbers. But, nevertheless, I have seen cases where people were simply being too harsh a critic of themselves – this of course, can lead to someone feeling unduly demoralized. This is definitely not my intention. I would much prefer the experience to be insightful and uplifting. I believe the underlying message should be that we are more in charge of our character structure and therefore future than many previously thought. There is no real mystery to what makes up human character structure and it can be changed; not easily perhaps, but it can be done with some determination.

By contrast, there have also been several readers that reported having an epiphany as a result of reading and playing around with the quiz. I myself can relate to this kind of feeling. I certainly went through something of this sort upon discovering the tenants underlying the quiz; but, this took place over a period of years and after all, the ethical quiz is really the essence of the whole ethical system being presented. In fact, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the ethical quiz is really Ethical Universe applied.  I must say that hearing these reports is very flattering to me as the author; but frankly they also give me pause. It’s a bit worrisome to think that some people might be so taken by the quiz and what it implies that they might feel blown away to the point of making a rash life-altering decision of some kind. My sober advice to these people is take a while to digest what they are feeling. Then talk it over with a trusted advisor that knows them very well who can also assess any plans they might be contemplating before acting on them. There is certainly nothing wrong with spontaneity and acting on some of our impulses; but foolhardiness is something else again, especially when major life decisions are at stake.

Let us now switch gears and talk about the quiz itself a little more. But first, I want to make a general point. No matter how much I write about the quiz, short of republishing the book piecemeal, I will not be able to cover all the details and background material that is contained in the book. This is especially true of all the graphics in the book used to explain the concepts being presented. I can, however, feel for the readers that want more information. So, I’ll try to expand on the info as much as practical; but, if people really want the full picture, they should plan on buying the book. The ebook version is currently selling for $9.99.  As with most, if no all, ebooks, there is no index in this version, but an electronic book does permit one to search for material which is a really nice feature I use all the time even though I wrote the book! Nevertheless, some people will be happier with the traditional hard copy available from the publisher and all major retailers including Amazon.com. Another general point that needs to be made is that the whole concept underlying the Ethical Universe should be considered as being based on Freudian Psychodynamics modified to some extent. I am tempted to call it neoFreudian. However, since the book is more closely based on the work of Dr. Erich Fromm, the renowned social theorist, philosopher and psychoanalyst, it would be more appropriately called neoFrommian. I feel roughly the same way about Erich Fromm as Fromm himself felt about Sigmund Freud. He was a brilliant theoretical thinker and innovator in the social science arena. But given all that he tried to accomplish, it would have been impossible for him to get everything right the first time. So, I wound up accepting what I felt was the best contributions made by both Freud and Fromm and left the rest. I was also greatly influenced by the work of Aristotle, Carl Jung and especially Frederich Nietzsche, the often bombastic and iconoclastic German philosopher of the late 19th century. Nietzsche had a tremendous impact on 20th century thought, much of which we still live with today; but, again he did not get it all right either. I spend a lot of time discussing these great men’s work in the book and attempt to interweave their theories into a rational whole.

Now back to the quiz itself. I saw no reason whatsoever to reject Freud’s fundamental topography of the human psyche. The drawing at the beginning of this article is Figure 8 in the book, which is a slightly modified version of the one Freud himself used in several books describing Psychoanalysis. Probably the biggest departure from Freudian concepts (or those of the other thinkers mentioned) is adding the notion that human passions must be treated like vectors. This admittedly is a big step. Therefore, I spend a great deal of time in the book justifying this concept. In summary, the justification goes somewhat as follows: All forces in nature are considered by science to be vectors with magnitude and direction. Since human passions are part of nature and are, of course, forces in the psyche, they also must be treated like vectors. In order to make any sense, vectors must be displayed in a coordinate system of some kind. The system I chose to use is a Cartesian coordinate system. Here, when basic vectors are plotted along the 3 dimensions, (x, y and z axes), and added together like vectors (i.e., using Pathagoran’s Theorem) we get a resultant vector that will indicate any of an infinite number of possible points in a sphere, or globe if one prefers. Vectors are really no more mysterious or esoteric than this.

In the Ethical Universe, the axes are assigned values describing the ego, id and superego consistent with Freud’s topography.  When we add these values as the vectors they are, we get a resultant vector that characterizes the entire psyche. If one accepts that the ego, id and superego is all there is in the human psyche, then this seems like an entirely reasonable way to treat human passions and also says that representing the psyche as a sphere which contains all possible ethical positions is equally valid.

Now to depict the ego, I basically use Freud’s Theory of Narcissism. In it’s most simplistic form, this turns out to be the difference in magnitude between our love for ourselves and our love for mankind in general (not just our lover or significant other). This part of Psychodynamics was anticipated by Frederich Nietzsche – only he called it the “Inversion of Man.” What this theory basically says is that any love that is directed outwards to other people that is not accepted or otherwise rejected gets reflected back to the person’s own self or ego.  When this process is carried to an extreme we have the essence of narcissism, a very serious mental disorder.  If for any reason no feelings of love for self exists, we have what we call the “Herd-Instinct.”  This is an equally debilitating mental condition where a person simply follows the pack that can take the form of parental worship, complete dedication to a group (secular or religious) or simply public opinion or common knowledge or customs etc..

In the case of the id, I basically use Freud’s Theory of Aggression. This theory was also covered by Nietzsche’s “Inversion of Man.” Here we have any feelings of external aggression towards others that is twarthed for whatever reason can and usually does get reflected back to the individual self. This results in all kinds of bad feelings for one’s own person and taken to an extreme can result in self-destructive behavior and even suicide. If no feelings of external aggression ever are reflected back and are allowed to progress and fester, the result is what we call “Blood-Thirsty.” Now we are probably talking about homicidal killers, stalkers and child molesters etc.

The depiction of the superego in the Ethical Universe is decidedly the least Freudian of all the concepts presented. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, Freud was definitely not a moralist by choice. In fact he had mostly contempt for philosophy in general. Freud made a conscious decision to take this stand and much preferred to consider himself a man of science. Unfortunately, Freud did not strictly abide by his own rule; he often took excursions into old legends that bordered on fantasy at times. Erich Fromm severely criticized his hero for not taking advantage of a “Golden Opportunity” to advance the study of ethics which is after all the proper subject matter of the human psyche. Fromm also accused Freud of contributing to the erroneous notion of social relativism to which he (Fromm) was staunchly opposed. Fromm firmly believed, and I agree, that a proper “Science-of-Man” definitely does not lead to social relativism.  The best way I can think of to characterize the superego in the Ethical Universe is by calling it a confluence of Aristotle’s Golden Means doctrine, Erich Fromm’s social and psychoanalytical philosophy and Fredrich Nietzsche’s moral philosophy.  It, of course, took a lot of study and deep introspection to arrive at this position.

What I wound up doing was presenting the superego axis as basically where we look for moral and ethical guidance; or more succinctly where we place our feelings of devotion. So, at one extreme we have what I call the ‘literal’ position. This is where people do no moral thinking for themselves, but rather fully accept ethical precepts from an external source unquestioningly. This is a very scary position where we find absolutists of all stripes and even suicide-bombers etc.  The other extreme is what I call pernicious relativity. This is also a scary position that is very close to what Nietzsche called nihilism, what he thought was the opposite of the Ascetic Ideal and the scourge of 19th century Europe – hence the famous (or infamous) quote, GOD IS DEAD! At this position there are no absolutes of any kind, all moral positions are a matter of taste and we all live in a meaningless world – we definitely see too much of this kind of thinking in modern America today, perhaps  in all of Western civilization.

In general, all positions in the Ethical Universe conform to the basic idea behind Aristotle’s Golden Means. In essence, this doctrine says that all virtues are framed between two ‘sins.’ This notion also agrees with Nietzsche’s concept of “too much of one thing and not enough of another is not good by definition.”

I am going to cut this discussion off at this point for fear of it getting too long. I will plan on picking back up on this subject matter in a future post. Thanks for reading. John McAlister